Download - THE TEACHER AS "MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE OTHER" IN ASSISTING LITERACY LEARNING WITH SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS
This article was downloaded by: [University of Glasgow]On: 04 October 2014, At: 17:15Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming LearningDifficultiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/urwl20
THE TEACHER AS "MORE KNOWLEDGEABLE OTHER" INASSISTING LITERACY LEARNING WITH SPECIAL NEEDSSTUDENTSTroy V. Mariage, Carol Sue Englert, M. Arthur Garmona Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USAb Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USAPublished online: 07 Jan 2011.
To cite this article: Troy V. Mariage, Carol Sue Englert, M. Arthur Garmon (2000) THE TEACHER AS "MORE KNOWLEDGEABLEOTHER" IN ASSISTING LITERACY LEARNING WITH SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS, Reading & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming LearningDifficulties, 16:4, 299-336, DOI: 10.1080/10573560050129196
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573560050129196
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon andshould be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable forany losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use ofthe Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Reading & Writing Quarterly, 16 : 299–336, 2000
Copyright 2000 Taylor & Francis(
1057-3569/00 $12.00 ].00
THE TEACHER AS ‘‘MORE KNOWLEDGEABLEOTHER’’ IN ASSISTING LITERACY LEARNING
WITH SPECIAL NEEDS STUDENTS
Troy V. Mariage
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
Carol Sue Englert
Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, USA
M. Arthur Garmon
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA
This article examines four ways in which special education teachers assisted
studentsÄ development in literacy events. These include the teacherÄs role as a
more knowledgeable member of the classroom who (1) uses dialogue to scaþold
performance, (2) nurtures the dialogical relationship that underlies the dis-
course in classrooms, (3) uses procedural facilitation to make complex processes
accessible to students and gives them a language for talking about spoken and
written text, and (4) transfers increasing levels of control and responsibility to
students for regulating their own learning.
Teachers of students who have special learning and behavioral chal-
lenges often struggle with how they can engage these students in the
rich literacy instruction of their more able peers. While it is apparent
that these students need to be provided opportunities to develop their
letter recognition, phonemic awareness, and vocabulary skills, it is
less clear as to how teachers might assist the development of more
complex comprehension and composition processes.
Recent instructional research in literacy that has drawn on the
work of Vygotsky (1978) and other sociocultural theorists (Moll &
Greenberg, 1990; Wertsch, 1991) has shown the potential for trans-
forming the learning contexts in which special education students
receive literacy instruction to boost achievement (Englert, Mariage,
Address correspondence to Troy V. Mariage, Ph. D., 333 Erickson Hall,
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education, Michigan
State University, East Lansing, MI 48824-1034. E-mail : mariaget=pilot.msu.edu
299
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
300 T. V. Mariage et al.
FIGURE 1 Literacy Activities on the Early Literacy Project.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 301
FIGURE 1 Continued.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
302 T. V. Mariage et al.
Garmon, Rozendal, Tarrant, & Urba, 1995; Ruiz, Garcia, & Figueroa,
1996). With an explicit focus on more knowledgeable members of the
culture who provide apprenticeships that assist students in acquiring
literacy practices, this research has importance in helping educators
understand how to teach our most challenged learners.
As a more knowledgeable member of the classroom, the teacher
has a vital role in employing a variety of tools and scaþolds to
support the development of literacy knowledge in the context of
dynamic reading and writing activities (Gallimore, Goldenberg, &
Weisner, 1992). The types of literacy events that the teacher chooses,
the ways in which the teacher utilizes various instructional scaþolds
(e.g., discourse, procedural facilitation), and the planned transfer of
control to students for carrying out the cognitive work of the activity
impact the type of literacy learning that is aþorded students in the
classroom (Tharp & Gallimore, 1988). Research is clearly needed to
better understand how teachers can assist studentsÄ development,
given the increasingly complex demands of todayÄs literacy curricula
and the charge for teachers to modify curricula so that all students
can acquire the knowledge and dispositions of successful readers and
writers.
One curricular approach that had signiücant impact on special
education studentsÄ reading and writing achievement was the Early
Literacy Project (Englert, Garmon, Mariage, Rozendal, Tarrant, &
Urba, 1995; Englert, Mariage, Garmon, & Tarrant, 1998). Underlying
the instructional model of the Early Literacy Project (ELP) were
several key principles drawn from a sociocultural perspective, includ-
ing a belief that literacy instruction should (1) be embedded in mean-
ingful, contextualized, and purposive activities, (2) be integrated
across the curriculum, (3) promote self-regulated learning, and (4)
foster a discourse community where literacy performance is mutually
shared, constructed, and made public (see Englert & Mariage, 1996;
Englert, Raphael, & Mariage, 1994). From these core beliefs about the
socially constructed nature of knowledge, a variety of literacy events
were chosen, including thematic inquiries, choral reading, undis-
turbed silent reading (Berglund & Johns, 1983; Levine, 1984), partner
reading (Dauite, 1986 ; Labbo & Teale, 1990 ; Morrice & Simmons,
1991; Topping, 1989), sharing chair (Graves & Hansen, 1983), morning
message (Routman, 1991), story response (Bos, 1991 ; Idol, 1987),
journal writing, and authorÄs center (Englert & Raphael, 1989). These
activities are depicted in Figure 1.
Our research showed that while the purported goals of these liter-
acy events signiücantly shaped the meaning that was constructed in
classrooms, it was the ways that individual teachers enacted the events
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 303
to assist both the individual studentÄs and the whole groupÄs cogni-
tive and social development that determined the eþectiveness of
various literacy practices. In this article, we draw upon the work of
ELP teachers to illuminate four forms of assisting student develop-
ment through guided apprenticeships in special education and inclu-
sion classrooms. These four forms of assisting development included
(1) the role of classroom talk in supporting learning (Mariage, 1995;
Palincsar, 1986) ; (2) the role of the teacher in nurturing the dialogical
relationship (Burbules, 1993 ; Tannen, 1989) ; (3) the use of procedural
facilitation (Bereiter & Bird, 1985) ; and (4) transferring control of the
meaning-making process to students.
THE ROLE OF TALK IN ASSISTING PERFORMANCE
Teachers often take for granted that talk is part of their teaching
repertoire ; it is a tool that simultaneously inýuences the social
context of the classroom and is a key mechanism in communicating
the content of messages. As a result, the ways in which teachers use
talk in classrooms is seldom part of their overt attention (Barnes,
1992 ; Wells, 1996). However, as Wells (1996) notes, unless teachers
understand the importance of classroom discourse and raise it to a
level of conscious attention and reýection, they are likely to miss key
opportunities to lead studentsÄ cognitive and social development.
To examine the ways that teachers used talk in their classrooms,
our team explored the nature of the literacy activities in special edu-
cation classrooms and how they promoted meaningful dialogue and
learning. Prior to the ELP intervention, students in these classrooms
were seldom asked to talk for extended periods of time, participated
narrowly in talk by largely responding to teachersÄ questions with
short, unelaborated answers, and were seldom constructors of new
text. As a result, we began to transform the classroom contexts by
ensuring that all students were active constructors of written and
spoken texts and played a prominent role in meaning creation. This
shift in emphasis from special needs students being consumers of cur-
riculum to producers of meaning forced teachers and researchers to
reexamine the role that talk played in classrooms. We now explore
several examples of how talk was used to scaþold performance to lead
to more complex understandings of the content under consideration.
Using Talk to Lead Student Thinking
On the project, teachers became increasingly adept at responding to
the unique needs of students by providing only sufficient support to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
304 T. V. Mariage et al.
allow the student to participate successfully in the event. Through
the deft use of a number of instructional ÃÃmovesÄÄ (Mariage, 1995;
Roehler & Duþy, 1991), including modeling, questioning (Bos &
Anders, 1990), uptaking (Collins, 1982), thinking-aloud (Lenz, 1989),
feeding back, and others, teachers were able to work at the edges of
studentsÄ understanding and involve them maximally in the literacy
activity. Depending upon the content in which teachers and students
were engaged, teachers adjusted their support on a moment-to-
moment basis. The following three examples, taken from the event of
Morning Message, illustrate the adjustable nature of teacher scaf-
folding.
In the ürst example, a 3rd–6th grade urban class of educable men-
tally impaired students was completing a morning message for the
ürst time. Morning message involved a group-writing activity in
which the teacher and students asked questions of the author to elicit
ideas about an experience or event, then transformed those ideas into
a written text that might be understood by a more remote audience
(e.g., for a newspaper story). The teacher acted as a scribe and facili-
tator for the group construction process by recording text on a large
piece of chart paper placed in front of the room. In the following
transcript, the teacher makes every attempt to allow the author,
Sharnika, and the other students to take an active part in the
meaning construction process, but the teacher still assumes a central
role in leading the dialogue and scaþolding student performance. The
teacherÄs role is further complicated by the fact that this is the ürst
morning message activity, and Sharnika has limited oral language
skills, restricting her willingness and ability to contribute to the
classroom discourse.
001 Teacher : Sharnika, did you do anything exciting this weekend you
would like to write about?
002 Sharnika : (smiles and nods, ÃyesÄ)003 Teacher : What did you do this weekend?
004 Sharnika : (smiles, looks unsure)
005 Teacher : (waits) Did you watch something special on T.V.?
006 Sharnika : (nods head ÃyesÄ)007 Teacher : What did you watch? Nickelodeon, Warner Brothers,
Simpsons?
008 Sharnika : (nods head ÃyesÄ) Nickelodeon.
009 Teacher : Okay, do you want to write about watching Nickelodeon
this weekend?
010 Sharnika : (nods head ÃyesÄ)011 Teacher : How can we put that in a sentence? (Waits) Could you call
on a friend to help you?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 305
012 Sharnika : (points to Taneisha) Taneisha?
013 Taneisha : ÃÃThis weekend Sharnika watched Nickelodeon on T.V.ÄÄ014 Teacher : Sharnika, do you want me to write down that idea?
015 Sharnika : (nods) Yes.
016 Teacher : (writes on large chart paper) ÃÃThis weekend Sharnika
watched Nickelodeon on T.V.ÄÄ
In this example, the teacher attempted to create ample space for
Sharnika to enter the discourse, and only added support after giving
her time to respond. With the ürst question, ÃÃDid you do something
special this weekend,ÄÄ the teacher oþered Sharnika a wide range of
response potential. When Sharnika responded with uncertainty, the
teacher then added support by posing a question that shifted Shar-
nikaÄs attention to T.V., a subject that he felt conüdent that Sharnika
might have engaged in. When this question still did not aþord Shar-
nikaÄs entry into the discourse, the teacher added another layer of
information by actually oþering the names of several shows (e.g.,
Nickelodeon, Warner Brothers, Simpsons). Sharnika was then able to
participate at this level and responded, ÃÃNickelodeon.ÄÄ Next, when
asked to transform this idea into a sentence, Sharnika again
appeared uncertain, and the teacher suggested Sharnika call upon a
friend (Taneisha), who then oþered a sample text for the groupÄs con-
sideration.
While at ürst glance, this stretch of talk appears somewhat dis-
couraging because of SharnikaÄs limited participation, it illustrates
the nature of adjusting the level of support on a moment-to-moment
basis to further studentsÄ participation in the literacy activity while
allowing them to retain ownership of the textÄs construction.
Although it would have been easier for the teacher to call on other
students, he recognized it was essential that special needs students be
aþorded opportunities to implement literacy practices. Apprentice-
ships in literacy practices demand that all students participate, at
whatever level they can perform. For Sharnika, this meant her par-
ticipation in selecting a writing topic. Over time, as students partici-
pated in literacy events that engaged them in discourse (which
provided them with language models and feedback on a regular basis ;
e.g., Taneisha modeling for Sharnika how an idea could be trans-
formed into an oral text), students could begin to internalize increas-
ingly more complex ways of using literacy practices and talk.
Simultaneously, the teacherÄs role in the discourse was expected to
shift as individual students and the group took on a greater role and
ownership of the cognitive work.
The shifting role of the teacher is illustrated in the following tran-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
306 T. V. Mariage et al.
script of a 3rd–4th grade resource classroom of students who had par-
ticipated in Morning Message for two years. These students had
internalized many of the editing and revising conventions necessary
to create a well-formed written text. Consequently, the cognitive
support provided by the teacher had decreased and her role shifted to
that of being a facilitator for the studentsÄ talk.
In the following sequence, the teacher has asked the class ÃÃWhat
do I need [to do?]ÄÄ before recording ByronÄs message about going
üshing with his father. In this transcript, the brackets represent over-
lapping talk between two or more speakers.
060 Teacher : What do I need? Jerrod, what do I need (very rapid pace)?
061 Jerrod : Indent.
062 Teacher : I need to indent. What else do I need?
063 Angie : Capitals.
064 Teacher : Capitals. What else do I need, Tracey?
065 Tracey : Indent.
066 Teacher : I am going to indent and capitalize, and Juan.
067 M068 Jerrod : Topic sentence.
069 Juan : Topic sentence.
070 Danny : Yeah (shakes hand)
071 Teacher : And topic sentence. Byron, thatÄs your job.
072 Byron : ÃÃToday Byron will go üshing.ÄÄ073 M074 Danny : Pause (comma)
075 Nathan : Pause.
076 Jerrod : Tell them where you go ürst. Tell them where you go ürst.
077 Ss : ÃÃGo üshing.ÄÄ
This episode, like that in the previous transcript, represents the
beginning of the construction of a morning message. However, with
this more experienced group of special education students, the
teacher only needed to prompt the students to recall what a writer
needed to think about before beginning a paper, thereby creating
space for them to initiate their use of the literacy practices. Jerrod
and Angie quickly reminded the teacher that she needed to indent
and capitalize the ürst letter of the sentence. The teacher continued
to push their involvement in ever-widening ways by repeating the
statement, ÃÃWhat else do I need,ÄÄ after each suggested response.
Jerrod interrupted the teacher in line 068 and says, ÃÃTopic sentence.ÄÄJuan, whom the teacher asked to respond in line 066, also echoed,
ÃÃTopic sentenceÄÄ (line 069). Danny then conürmed their response by
saying ÃÃyeahÄÄ and pumping his hand in the air. In this classroom, the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 307
call for a topic sentence was a tactical move that was handed back to
the author of the message for its enactment. In line 071, the teacher
turned to the author, Byron, to construct the topic sentence by
stating ÃÃAnd topic sentence. Byron, thatÄs your job.ÄÄ Without hesita-
tion, Byron stated his topic sentence in line 072, ÃÃToday, Byron will
go üshing.ÄÄIn contrast to the ürst example, the teacher in this transcript is
serving more as a facilitator in the conversation. Rather than having
to perform the bulk of the cognitive work through modeling, ques-
tioning, and thinking aloud, the teacher now transfers control of the
writing practices to students so that they can be apprenticed in the
implementation of the writing conventions they have begun to inter-
nalize. The role of the teacher in the discourse has shifted as the
skills and needs of the students have changed. However, in both tran-
scripts, the teacher provides only the minimal support that students
require to enter the meaning-making process, stepping in to prompt
or to provide additional information when students are unable to gen-
erate meanings and stepping back when they can perform practices
without assistance.
The ünal transcript illustrates how a teacher used speciüc forms of
talk, or instructional moves, to assist students in their thinking. Two
forms of talk, including talk that functioned to explicitly transfer
control of the meaning-making and monitoring process to students
(e.g., uptaking) and that which gave students deeper insights into the
teacherÄs thinking as a more knowledgeable member of the com-
munity (e.g., thinking aloud), are illustrated. Depending upon the
changing needs of the group, especially the tension between allowing
students maximum opportunities to participate in building their own
understandings, on the one hand, and the need to directly teach
writing conventions, on the other hand, the teacher utilized forms of
talk that either called upon studentsÄ background knowledge or
instructed students in the writing conventions that were shared by
the larger culture of writers.
In this example, the class was struggling to construct a topic sen-
tence on which everyone could agree. The author, Angie, had chosen
to develop a story around her upcoming birthday. At issue was
whether it was necessary to include the month of AngieÄs birthday
(April) in the text since the top of each Morning Message contained
that dayÄs date. Another issue centered around which of two com-
peting topic sentences sounded better (the classÄ topic sentence or
AngieÄs sentence). For ease of interpretation, the teacherÄs talk is
underlined within the transcript and the speciüc type of teaching
move is placed in parentheses.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
308 T. V. Mariage et al.
135 Nathan : No, the 24th, the 24th.
136 Teacher: So I take oþ, but we have ÃÃSaturdayÄÄ up there Nathan. So I
take oþ the
137 period (uptaking on NathanÄs suggestion).
138 Angie : No.
139 Mark : Yeah. And then put ÃÃthe 24th,ÄÄ and then put a period.
140 Danny : (rereads by himself) ÃÃSaturday the . . .ÄÄ141 Teacher: ÃÃthe 24th.ÄÄ And then I put a period (uptake of MarkÄsidea).
142 Angie : Hold on.
143 Teacher: ÃÃAngieÄs birthday is on Saturday the 24th.ÄÄ (rereading the
text)
144 Hannah : Yeah.
145 Ss : That sounds better.
146 Mark : Sounds good, yeah.
147 Angie : (stands at board) I thought what we could do is ÃÃAngieÄs148 birthday is on April 24th on Saturday.ÄÄ149 Teacher : ÃÃAngieÄs birthday is on April 24th on Saturday.ÄÄ (uptake
of AngieÄs idea)
150 Mark : That doesnÄt sound right.
151 Teacher : That doesnÄt sound right. (uptake of MarkÄs idea)
152 S : WeÄre using too many ÃÃAngieÄsÄÄ.153 Teacher : So, but what youÄre saying is that you really kind of wanted
154 ÃÃApril 24thÄÄ in there somehow? (Uptake to check understanding of
AngieÄs idea)
155 Angie : (goes to Message) Yeah, I wanted it in between, like here,
156 Ãcause that theyÄll know itÄs Saturday.
157 Teacher : Ok, listen, IÄll do it both ways. Listen carefully. ÃÃAngieÄs158 birthday is on Saturday the 24th.ÄÄ ThatÄs the ürst one. ÃÃAngieÄsbirthday is on April 24th
159 on Saturday.ÄÄ (modeling of two competing examples)
160 Danny : No, it doesnÄt sound right.
161 M162 Janitra : The ürst way.
163 Teacher : The ürst way sounds right? (uptake of JanitraÄssuggestion)
164 Ss : Yeah.
165 Teacher : You understand that? (checking for understanding by
asking a question)
166 Teacher : Did you hear how it was kind of choppy when I did it the
167 other way. And this way its kind of really smooth, it ýowed smooth-
ly? (thinking aloud)
168 But I see what youÄre saying, too. Mark?
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 309
In this episode, the teacher does very little direct instruction in
speciüc writing conventions, but instead acknowledges studentsÄthinking by uptaking on their ideas, usually by repeating all or part
of the studentÄs idea. Seven out of the ten teacher utterances involved
repeating or rereading what students had suggested. However, by
simply repeating studentsÄ ideas, she positions them to reýect on lan-
guage and participate in problem solving within the text construction
process. The students literally step into authoritative roles as they
begin to direct the text composition process, monitor the text, and
challenge othersÄ assumptions. They blurt out, ÃÃNo . . .ÄÄ ÃÃYes . . .ÄÄÃÃHold onÄÄ ÃÃThat sounds betterÄÄ and ÃÃThat doesnÄt sound right.ÄÄThese statements suggest that students are thinking and assuming
leadership roles from which they command or govern the writing
process. In this way, as the teacher vacated a direct teaching role
within the discourse, she opened up new possibilities for her students
as she apprenticed them in the literate practices associated with self-
monitoring and self-regulating the writing process.
Toward the end of the segment (when the debate about the topic
sentence deepens), we see how the teacherÄs uptake on ideas is partic-
ularly eþective because the value neutral stance of this move allows
the teacher to oþer both MarkÄs and AngieÄs topic sentences as viable
alternatives for the group to consider. The resulting pattern is a vol-
leying of Mark and AngieÄs propositions back and forth for the con-
sideration of the group. In line 139, Mark puts forth the idea that the
topic sentence should end with ÃÃ. . . the 24th,ÄÄ creating the sentence,
ÃÃAngieÄs birthday is on Saturday the 24th.ÄÄ The teacher takes up this
idea in line 141 by directly repeating MarkÄs idea back to the group.
The teacherÄs uptake prompts Angie to immediately question this
topic sentence in line 142 (ÃÃHold onÄÄ) and then actually stand up
from the authorÄs chair and suggest an alternative topic sentence in
lines 147–148 (ÃÃI thought what we could do is ÃAngieÄs birthday is on
April 24th on Saturday.ÄÄÄ). The teacher then takes up AngieÄs new
topic sentence and repeats it directly for the groupÄs consideration.
This new oþering again evokes a response from the group, as Mark
says, ÃÃThat doesnÄt sound right,ÄÄ which is immediately revoiced and
repeated by the teacher in line 151.
The teacherÄs revoicing of Mark and AngieÄs competing ideas
allows the group to ponder which topic sentence is more eþective.
However, in order to make the comparison of the two competing ideas
clearer, the teacher positions the two possibilities by setting up a
side-by-side comparison of the ideas. In lines 157–159, the teacher
takes more direct control of the talk (ÃÃListen carefullyÄÄ) and models
for the students how a more knowledgeable writer might compare two
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
310 T. V. Mariage et al.
competing ideas, by ürst reading and listening to one topic sentence
(ÃÃÃAngieÄs birthday is on Saturday the 24th.Ä ThatÄs the ürst oneÄÄ)and then reading the other (ÃÃAngieÄs birthday is on April 24th on
Saturday.ÄÄ). The result of the teacherÄs direct modeling has a power-
ful eþect on the group, as Danny immediately responds that the
second topic sentence ÃÃ. . . doesnÄt sound rightÄÄ and Janitra simulta-
neously responds, ÃÃThe ürst one.ÄÄ The teacher then takes up
JanitraÄs suggestion that MarkÄs topic sentence sounds better by
repeating JanitraÄs words in the form of a question (ÃÃThe ürst way
sounds right?ÄÄ). A number of students then agree that in the side-by-
side comparison, the ürst topic sentence is clearer.
The teacher next checks the understanding of the entire group by
posing another open ended question (ÃÃYou understand that?ÄÄ) in line
165. This question precedes a think aloud in lines 166–167 that allows
the group to see how a writer might have been weighing or thinking
through the comparison of the two competing topic sentences : ÃÃDid
you hear how it was kind of choppy when I did it the other way. And
this way its kind of really smooth, it ýowed smoothly?ÄÄThough this example illustrates only two types of moves used by
the teacher in morning message, it highlights the teacher as a dis-
course participant whose instructional decisions are of profound
importance in the formation of apprenticeships that govern the way
that meaning gets constructed within the group. In this transcript,
the teacher recognizes that when there are competing ideas on the
speaking ýoor, there is a risk that one speakerÄs idea may come under
criticism by the majority of the group and not be considered as a
viable alternative. At the same time, if the teacher dominates the
group discourse with her own opinions, the discourse becomes rather
stilted as students begin to display knowledge to the teacher and not
take the personal risks involved in more meaningful encounters
(Bloome, 1986).
The teacher seems to strike a balance by strategically revoicing a
studentÄs idea and broadcasting it back to the group. This form of
uptake functions to communicate to the speaker that their idea has
been heard and is valued, but it also prompts the group to take
responsibility for directing or continuing the meaning construction
process. As a result of these uptakes, the writing goal, i.e., the need to
choose between two competing topic sentences, has been positioned
in such a way that students can make informed decisions about which
sentence ÃÃsounds rightÄÄ while maintaining the personal integrity of
the two students oþering the sentences (i.e., Angie and Mark). This
attention to thinking about how one aligns or realigns both the
content under consideration and the social relationships of group
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 311
members will be discussed further in the explication of the teacherÄsinvolvement moves in the following section.
CONSTRUCTING THE DIALOGICAL RELATIONSHIPWITH STUDENTS
The underlying principles of the ELP, with emphases on the socially
constructed nature of learning, demanded that diþerent relationships
be established with students. As OÄConnor (1996) notes, when tea-
chers emphasize the childÄs role as a co-constructor of meaning with
the teacher and peers, the demands of orchestrating the discourse are
increased. When teachers transfer increasing control of the meaning-
making process to students and emphasize their active role in the
discourse, teachers have to confront their own long-standing beliefs
about roles and how learning occurs, including beliefs about
authority, power, and control. For special education teachers, a
group whose orientation emphasizes meeting each childÄs individual-
ized needs, this means growing more comfortable with a wider variety
of grouping arrangements (e.g., whole group, small group, partners),
increased noise level, and serving in a variety of diþerent roles (e.g.,
audience member, facilitator, coordinator) to meet their unique dis-
course demands.
One key feature of the most eþective ELP teachers was their
ability to form what Burbules (1993) called the ÃÃdialogical relation-
ship.ÄÄ These teachers forged new relationships with students that
were based upon the key communicative virtues of trust, respect, and
mutuality. As a result, teachers were not only responsible for helping
to build understanding of the process of meaning construction and
content, but also for establishing and nurturing the social relation-
ship of group members (see Burbules, 1993 ; OÄConnor & Michaels,
1993).
The teacherÄs role as a more knowledgeable member who served as
a facilitator in the construction of meaning was nowhere greater
than in Morning Message, with its focus on the construction of a
written text that the whole class could agree upon. The occasionally
volatile and heated dialogues that occurred as students problem-
solved around aspects of the writing process demanded that the
teacher be highly sensitive to the social needs of group members. In
order to accomplish this high level of involvement while building the
dialogical relationship of class members, teachers utilized a number
of conversational involvement moves to orient and position the whole
class or individual students to maintain a high level of participation
(Tannen, 1989).
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
FIG
UR
E2
Deü
nit
ion
san
dexam
ple
sof
teach
er
involv
em
en
tm
oves
inM
orn
ing
Mess
age.
312
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
FIG
UR
E2
Con
tin
ued.
313
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
314 T. V. Mariage et al.
In Morning Message, the teacher used eight involvement moves,
including (1) repetition or uptake (Tannen, 1989), (2) revoicing or
reformulating an idea for the groupÄs consideration (OÄConnor &
Michaels, 1993), (3) rereading the text to orient the class, (4) support-
ing statements, (5) directly calling on an individual student, (6)
holding the speaking ýoor for a student, (7) using humor, and (8)
giving permission for students to continue talking (see Figure 2 for
deünitions and examples of the involvement moves). Involvement
moves appeared to have at least three functions, including involving
students as individual speakers (e.g., repeating, directly calling),
involving the entire group of speakers (e.g., revoicing; rereading),
and as a repair strategy (e.g., supporting) for resolving disagreements
among group members.
In the following Morning Message transcript, the teacher uses
several discourse moves to accomplish the three levels of conversa-
tional involvement (e.g., individual speaker, whole group, and repair).
This segment is a continuation of the previous message, where the
students are disagreeing about whether they need to put the month of
AngieÄs birthday in the text. After a number of suggestions, the
teacher turns to Angie and asks her to choose one of the possibilities
350 Teacher : Okay, ÃÃAngie is having a birthday party on the 24th.ÄÄ[re-reading]351 Teacher : It DOES sound right. All of them sound right
352 [supporting]. Hannah said, do you remember [direct call on
Hannah/ýoor holding]?
353 Hannah : Yeah. ÃÃAngieÄs birthday is on Saturday the 24th.ÄÄ Wait,
354 ÃÃAngie is going to have a birthday party on the 24th. She is going
to invite friends over.ÄÄ355 Teacher : (Looks at author) : ÃÃI should have written all these down.ÄÄ356 Danny : It sounds choppy.
357 Teacher : It sounds choppy [uptake]? Angie, I am going to let you
358 decide, what do you want it to say [direct call, supporting]?
359 Teacher : All of them sounded right [supporting]. I could do one,
two, three, four, üve,
360 six . . . fourteen, I could do fourteen diþerent
361 ways. Because all of us have our opinions. But this is AngieÄs, so
Angie, what do you want to say [direct call]?
362 Angie : ÃÃAngieÄs birthday is on Saturday and she is having a birth-
363 day party on the 24th.ÄÄ364 Danny : It sounds choppy.
365 Teacher : Ok, ÃÃAngieÄs birthday is on Saturday and she is having a
birthday party on
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 315
366 the 24th [re-reading].ÄÄ And Hannah, Danny, one of you two said
ÃÃtoo many
367 birthdays [direct call],ÄÄ and Angie, you said to get rid of what
[ýoor holding]?
368 Angie : Okay, get rid of this one (points to second ÃÃbirthdayÄÄ).
In this short segment of transcript, the teacher orchestrates both
the content under consideration (e.g., the clarity of the topic
sentence) and the relationship between the participants. DannyÄs per-
sistence that AngieÄs topic sentence is ÃÃchoppyÄÄ and HannahÄs hesita-
tion about AngieÄs topic sentence in lines 353 and 354 positions the
teacher to use several discourse moves that maintain the involvement
of individual students and the group as a whole. After re-reading
AngieÄs topic sentence in the ürst two lines, the teacher immediately
supports students, including the author of the message, Angie, saying
that the topic sentence ÃÃDOESÄÄ sound right. At the same time, the
teacher honors the thinking of students who have diþerent ideas and
directly calls on Hannah, giving her the speaking ýoor to express her
ideas. Hannah takes advantage of this opportunity and repeats
AngieÄs topic sentence, adding an additional sentence about inviting
friends over. Danny continues to think the sentence is choppy, and
the teacher repeats DannyÄs comment, ÃÃit sounds choppy,ÄÄ giving
DannyÄs idea back to the group in a non-judgmental fashion. The
message then continues with several additional exchanges and
involvement moves.
In this brief glimpse at discourse during Morning Message, it
seems apparent that when teachers seek to create rich problem-
solving dialogues that underlie current reform eþorts, they will need
to be sensitive to ensure that studentsÄ voices are valued, protected,
and made public (Lampert, Rittenhouse, & Crumbaugh, 1996). Just as
teachers are constantly assessing the needs of their studentsÄ under-
standing of content and adjusting instructional scaþolds accordingly,
they need to give similar eþort to nurturing the dialogical relation-
ship between speakers. Ultimately, if we are to understand the poten-
tial for changing the ways students are asked to construct meaning in
the classroom and how they learn, teachers will need to foster the
communicative virtues of trust, mutuality, and respect that underlie
all forms of discourse (Burbules, 1993).
USING PROCEDURAL FACILITATION TO ASSISTDEVELOPMENT
A third resource that teachers used to assist development were a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
316 T. V. Mariage et al.
variety of procedural facilitation tools (Bereiter & Bird, 1985). Pro-
cedural facilitation, tools that help support and mediate the studentsÄimplementation of a procedure or process, accomplished at least two
goals on the Early Literacy Project, including (1) giving students a
language to talk about text and to converse with one another, and (2)
making explicit and visible the comprehension and composition pro-
cesses through the use of think-sheets and text structure maps.
Several tools that facilitated particular procedures and processes are
discussed below.
Entering the Discourse: Giving Students a Language toTalk About Text and Converse
When ELP teachers worked with nonconventional readers and
writers—students who were still unable to read and write ýuently—it
was necessary to provide a number of supports that allowed them to
participate in the entire process of producing and sharing texts.
Rather than focus exclusively on speciüc skill development (e.g.,
letter identiücation, sounds, forming letters), experienced teachers
found ways to ensure that every child participated in complex com-
position, comprehension, and oral discourse processes.
For example, in Sharing Chair, a literacy event that required audi-
ence members to ask authors ÃÃcomments or questions,ÄÄ it was found
that many students were unable to ask questions, and relied on sim-
plistic statements that were repeated over and over (e.g., ÃÃI like your
storyÄÄ). Since many special needs students lacked experience in using
more complex language forms (e.g., using interrogatives to monitor,
gather, or construct meaning; asking higher order questions), tea-
chers needed to scaþold the discourse by demonstrating, thinking-
aloud, and modeling the literacy practices associated with inquiry
and question-asking.
To encourage studentsÄ use of the literacy practices so that they
could begin asking their own questions, teachers used ÃÃhelper wordsÄÄthat were posted on a mobile in the classroom. The helper words,
including Äwho, what, when, where, why, and howÄ (see Figure 3) were
used to provide students with access to a language and to provide
them tools with which to participate in the discourse of the literacy
community (Gee, 1992). As shown in Figure 3, teachers gave meaning
to these tools by providing guided apprenticeships in which they
thought out loud about their function (e.g., ÃÃNow remember, our
authors have spent a lot of time writing their stories, we need to
think of questions to ask them to help them remember what they
didÄÄ), modeled the strategy by asking authors questions about their
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 317
FIGURE 3 Helper words used to support students questioning, categorizing,
and summarizing.
stories, questioned students to prompt their use of the helper words,
and transferred control of the helper words to the students.
Initially, it was necessary to make explicit the helper words and to
frequently refer students to them. Over time, however, students inter-
nalized the question-generation strategy as they used the tools to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
318 T. V. Mariage et al.
mediate their own performance in multiple contexts and for varied
purposes. In the following annotated example of a Sharing Chair
lesson from the same third and fourth grade classroom who had been
in Early Literacy Project for several years, we see that students were
able to use questioning eþectively to get meaning from their peers.
In this transcript, Angie was participating in Sharing Chair by
reading a journal entry that she had written about the upcoming
birthday party described in the previous transcript. She called on
audience members for ÃÃcomments or questions,ÄÄ to which audience
members responded. Through their questions and comments, the audi-
ence positioned Angie to respond in particular ways. Audience
membersÄ questions are bolded.
224 Angie : ÃÃMy birthday is April 24th 1993 and I will turn 10 years old
225 on Saturday, and tomorrow I will bring squirrel bars to the party
and I am going
226 to invite Janitra, Amber, Laurie, Tracey and Hannah for a party at
my house.ÄÄ Any
227 comments or questions? Uh, Tracey?
228 Tracey : Um, are we going to have your address?
229 Angie : Huh?
230 Tracey : Are we going to have your address?
231 Angie : No, my mom, my mom told me, um, if, that you guys, to give
232 me your guys phone number or address and weÄll go over and pick
you guys up.
233 Tracey : Oh good.
234 Angie : (cont.) and stuþ like that, cause at our house, its a big
235 house, and um, like, we, um, thereÄs thereÄs 3 bedrooms downstairs
and 3 bedrooms
236 upstairs. Because its a big house. My uncle Johnny, my uncle
237 Johnny before he moved out, he made 3 bedrooms downstairs. You
know
238 how the basements are big, how some of the basements are big. He
took, it
239 used to be a living room, a dining room, and stuþ like that. And he
built it
240 into 3 rooms. Danny?
241 Danny : This is a funny question, but what in the world are
squirrel bars?
242 Angie : (laughs) Well, I donÄt know, all I know, I donÄt really know, I
243 think theyÄre called, I think they look like, well you know how, um,
regular
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 319
244 candy bars look like, you know how they look like, like some of the
245 candy bars look like Rice Krispies, but um, but you make your own
bars.
246 Like you, um, put chocolate, chocolate in Äem, chocolate, chocolate
chips in Äem.
247 Ss : Oooh, bad.
248 Angie : Stuþ like that. Amber?
249 Amber : Um, I am not going to be able to come because weÄre going
250 up north, and I have to do some chores up there, up there because
my aunt lives
251 there and my uncle but, he canÄt move around very much so I have
to help
252 him do things. First I have to (feed horse?). Plus, I have to spend
time with (?).
253 Angie : Janitra?
254 Janitra : Why aren’t you going to invite her (points to
teacher)?
255 Angie : (smiles) Maybe she, my mom thought about just having kids
256 over, because, well, this is my ürst year, this is my second year of
having a slumber party.
257 And my mom thought of it and my grandmas thought of it, so I
258 decided to write it in my journal yesterday. Nigel?
259 Nigel : On my birthday I only get to invite 10 people.
260 Ss : Ten?
261 Angie : ThatÄs a LOT. Hannah?
In this section of talk, Angie is positioned as the informant by the
three questions and two comments from her audience. However, dif-
ferent questions and comments seem to elicit diþerent types of
responses in Angie. Angie is asked three questions : ÃÃAre we going to
have your address,ÄÄ ÃÃWhat in the world are squirrel bars,ÄÄ and ÃÃWhy
arenÄt you going to invite her.ÄÄ In the ürst two questions, Angie is
positioned to undertake particular forms of cognitive work, including
explaining, clarifying, and describing. For example, in order to
respond to her birthday party guestÄs question about where she lives,
Angie is positioned to explain to her prospective guests why they did
not need the address. AngieÄs explanation then goes beyond TraceyÄsoriginal question to include a description of her house and how her
uncle added an addition to the home, allowing many friends comfort-
ably to have a party.
Similar to TraceyÄs question, Danny also seeks some explanation
as to what ÃÃsquirrel barsÄÄ (Snicker Bars) are. DannyÄs question posi-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
320 T. V. Mariage et al.
tions Angie to describe the bars and clarify the confusion associated
with the term ÃÃsquirrel.ÄÄ Since these treats will be passed out to the
members of the class, there is an urgency for Angie to respond.
Having to describe and clarify was not an easy task for Angie. In her
brief response in lines 242 to 246, Angie hesitates seventeen times,
making it apparent how important peersÄ questions were in challeng-
ing and nudging forward her thinking and proücient use of conversa-
tional practices.
JanitraÄs questions function quite diþerently than the ürst two.
Janitra begins her question with the word ÃÃwhy,ÄÄ signalling to Angie
that she may be positioned to justify her writing. Janitra positions
Angie to justify why she invited each female member of the class
except the teacher. This question seems to have the eþect of strongly
urging Angie to respond. As in her explanation about squirrel bars
(Snicker Bars), Angie again seems to be challenged to justify her
exclusion of the teacher, trying to ünd the correct words to respond
(e.g., Maybe . . . because, well, this is . . .).
To the casual observer, the ability of students to ask questions
might seem deceptively easy. This accomplishment was achieved only
through the teachersÄ initial support of students through the provi-
sion of explicit helper words, thinking aloud about how and where to
use the words, modeling their use in meaningful contexts, and trans-
ferring control of the use of questioning to students. Gradually, stu-
dents were able to appropriate this practice to enter literacy
conversations about texts and ideas. Over time, students themselves
became more knowledgeable members whose own questions and com-
ments challenged and pushed the thinking of their peers.
A second use of the helper words in the classroom was to prompt
students to categorize information when writing and reading exposi-
tory texts. It is well documented that special needs students and low
achieving students have difficulty in categorizing information
(Raphael, Englert, & Kirschner, 1989) and summarizing main ideas
from what they have read (Bos, Anders, Filip, & Jaþe, 1989). To help
assist students who had difficulty generating categories of informa-
tion, ELP teachers routinely use text structure maps (e.g., explana-
tion, compare/contrast, topic clustering) to organize and sequence
information. Students soon learned that categories of expository
information usually began with one of the helper words.
For example, to complete a story about his family, a third grade
student, Jarrell, used the categories ÃÃPeople in my family [who],ÄÄÃÃWhere I live,ÄÄ ÃÃWhat my family teaches us,ÄÄ and ÃÃWhat we do
togetherÄÄ (see Figure 4). With the support of the helper words to
mediate his identiücation of categories of information, Jarrell gener-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
FIG
UR
E4
Jarr
ell
Äsorg
an
izati
on
map.
321
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
322 T. V. Mariage et al.
ated 25 details that he eventually included in his story. The helper
words from JarrellÄs map then served to help him generate a topic
sentence for each of his paragraphs of information (e.g., ÃÃSecond, I
am going to tell you about where I live,ÄÄ ÃÃThird, I am going to tell
you what my family teaches meÄÄ).As these examples illustrate, procedural facilitation tools helped
mediate literacy practices by bringing the endpoint of writing
organized text ÃÃforwardÄÄ to the beginning, helping students with
special needs coordinate the act of writing before the child could
accomplish this activity for himself (Newman, Griffin, & Cole, 1989).
Likewise, teachers helped students participate in the discourse by
making visible the language conventions necessary for a given liter-
acy activity. Teachers on the ELP routinely used mobiles (see helper
words in Figure 3), printed sentence stems (e.g., ÃÃI predict . . . ,ÄÄ ÃÃIthink one category is . . . ,ÄÄ ÃÃI think the main idea is . . .ÄÄ), peers, and
ýip charts to alert students to the unique language demands of the
activity and to provide access to that language. These artifacts
served as cognitive resources to augment and guide studentsÄ literacy
activities. When students had internalized these language practices
to direct their own independent problem solving, the teacher with-
drew these external scaþolds and transferred increasing levels of
responsibility to students for generalizing the use of these practices
across the curriculum.
Making Explicit Comprehension and CompositionProcesses
As already mentioned, many special needs students lacked the lan-
guage skills and opportunities to engage in the rich dialogues that
their peers routinely engaged in. Therefore, it was especially impor-
tant that these students be given access and multiple opportunities to
participate in the language and discourse of skilled readers and
writers, even though this discourse was initially beyond their initial
levels of performance. To accomplish this, teachers made explicit and
concrete the particular ways of speaking and ways of thinking associ-
ated with complex comprehension and composition processes, and
they oþ-loaded complex cognitive activities using a number of
instructional scaþolds, such as the text structure maps, sentence
stems, rubrics, and self-evaluation checklists.
However, the aþordances of artifacts and scaþolds are deeply cul-
tural ; that is, a person must be initiated into the cultural activities
that give meaning to these devices. Project teachers provided these
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 323
initiations through apprenticeships, where the students were intro-
duced to and participated in activities that called upon particular
ways of speaking and involved members in the use of cultural arti-
facts in situated contexts. To demonstrate how teachers provided
these supported apprenticeships in the reading and writing process,
we draw upon a co-taught üfth grade classroom where the general
education teacher and special education teacher taught together for
a period of the day. In this classroom, the special education teacher
was concerned about the background knowledge and lack of strategy
knowledge (e.g., prediction, organization, summarization, editing)
that many students, including the seven special needs students in the
class, would bring to the classÄ study of the novel, ÃÃJulie of the
WolvesÄÄ (George, 1972). To help activate and build a shared back-
ground knowledge, the special education teacher embarked on a
month-long thematic inquiry unit on wolves, where she explicitly
taught and provided apprenticeships in the comprehension and com-
position process to all students.
Throughout the unit, the teacher modeled each phase of the
writing and inquiry process, including planning oneÄs paper,
researching and organizing information, and introducing a rubric to
frame the expectations for drafting, editing, and revising (Englert,
Raphael, & Anderson, 1992). Each of the think-sheets used in the unit
are shown in Figure 5.
As can be seen in Figure 5, the teacher made explicit the entire
writing process to students by having a large banner with the letters
ÃÃPOWERÄÄ written vertically (see Englert, Raphael, & Anderson,
1992). Each letter was given a color that matched the color of the
think-sheet that students used (e.g., the ÃÃPlanÄÄ think-sheet was
colored red). The teacher and students reviewed the phases of the
writing process each day, and she had students think-aloud about
where their group was in their inquiry unit (i.e., Planing, Organizing,
Writing, Editing, or Revising). Sentence stems alerting students to
the key tasks for each phase of composing text prompted students to
become metacognitive of writing as a strategic process. For example,
in the ÃÃPlanningÄÄ phase, the teacher had students identify who their
audience was, why they were writing the paper, what they knew
about the topic, and sources where they could obtain information
about wolves. The class then generated twenty sources of informa-
tion, including the Internet and interviewing a member of the Depart-
ment of Natural Resources. Since many students do not access their
prior experience as a legitimate source of information, having the
class draw upon and synthesize information across multiple sources
expanded ÃÃwhat countsÄÄ as information for the students.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
FIG
UR
E5
Wri
tin
gpro
cess
thin
k-s
heets
.
324
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 325
The teacher also introduced the students to a scoring rubric to
guide the quality of their writing (see Figure 6). The teacher intro-
duced the rubric and spent several lessons modeling examples and
non-examples of each of the standards, including an introductory
paragraph that included each of the categories about which authors
FIGURE 6 Scoring rubric.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
326 T. V. Mariage et al.
FIGURE 7 Writing self-evaluation tool.
would talk, a topic sentence for each paragraph, at least 2–3 support-
ing details, and a conclusion paragraph. This use of the rubric,
coupled with concrete examples and non-examples for each of the cri-
teria, gave each student an internal standard to judge the adequacy
of their own work.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 327
A ünal tool the teacher used to make explicit the often invisible
processes and strategies that good writers and readers use was to
engage students in a self-evaluation of the entire inquiry experience
(see Figure 7). To accomplish this, the teacher had students reýect
upon each phase of their inquiry and ask themselves whether they
accomplished their goals. In this way, students were apprenticed into
a speciüc discourse about writing, a discourse that became increas-
ingly internalized and ÃÃownedÄÄ over time to guide independent
attempts at writing.
On the ELP, teachers used procedural facilitation to help support
students as they engaged in complex forms of reading, writing, speak-
ing, and participating. Procedural facilitation served many functions
in these classrooms, including acting as a temporary scaþold to give
students a language or vocabulary for interacting with text (e.g.,
helper words), making visible complex processes like comprehending
or composing, and structuring information in ways that helped stu-
dents to understand relationships (e.g., using think-sheets for plan-
ning or organizing ideas) between ideas.
TRANSFERRING CONTROL OF THE MEANINGMAKING PROCESS
A ünal role that the teacher can play in assisting the low achieving
and special needs student in the higher-order thinking of com-
prehending and composing text is to ensure that there is a gradual
ceding of responsibility to students for taking over the learning
process (Palincsar, 1986). In our experience in classrooms, teachers of
special needs students often provide too much of the cognitive work
for students and fail to ÃÃup the anteÄÄ as the student is able to take
over increasing levels of sophistication. Unless teachers transfer
control of the meaning-making process to students, these students
will continue to be dependent upon the support of others and fail to
internalize complex strategies and processes to regulate their own
learning.
However, as every teacher knows, when expectations are raised
and more is asked of students, they can meet with great resistance.
One possible solution to this challenge is to make sure that teachers
create activities that are purposeful to students, where students are
required to learn strategies to accomplish meaningful social goals,
rather than as ends in themselves. When ELP teachers began to
believe that every student was an author and reader, they increas-
ingly asked themselves to think of the tools that students needed to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
328 T. V. Mariage et al.
accomplish the goals of their work, rather than focus on whatever
limitations their students brought to the classroom. Teachers came to
understand how they could be responsive to studentsÄ individual
needs by ünding an entry point for learning and then transferring
increasing control for meaning-making to students.
What Can Teachers Transfer to Students?
When teachers have students gather and synthesize information from
multiple sources, teachers can transfer a number of learning features
to students, including (1) the modalities with which children are
expected to respond, (2) how the students are asked to participate in
the discourse, (3) the personal resources available to students as
knowledgeable others, and (4) the procedural facilitation used to
support learning (see Figure 8). Over the course of a lesson, unit, or
year, the teacher can make decisions to increase the complexity of
the inquiry by asking more of an individual or group of students in
any of the four areas identiüed. In this way, teachers can be
responsive to the unique needs of students and help to ensure that
they are nudging students towards more complex forms of learning.
FIGURE 8 Four areas for transferring control of the meaning-making
process.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 329
To illustrate how teachers might transfer control of these features
of instruction, we draw upon one teacherÄs attempt at transferring
control of the writing process in each of the four areas outlined above
over one year. The teacher, Monica Barnes, teaches in a 1st–3rd
grade cross-categorical resource classroom for special needs students.
One second grade student, Nathan, is used to illustrate many of the
challenges facing our young writers.
Nathan was typical of many students in our early special educa-
tion classrooms. NathanÄs writing challenges included difficulty in
producing written text, a limited writing vocabulary to communicate
ideas, a perception of himself as a non-writer, an overemphasis on
surface features of writing like spelling, a lack of knowledge that
writing is a process requiring multiple steps, and a history of limited
writing instruction (see Figure 9).
In order to address the writing challenges that these students
brought to the classroom, teachers on the Early Literacy Project
developed their curricular focus around four broad areas, including
(1) assisting students in the production of written text, (2) helping
students perceive themselves as informants and authors, (3) making
instructional scaþolds and support visible to students, and (4)
immersing students in a culture of writers and the writing process.
Within each of these four curricular features, teachers were cogni-
zant of the need to constantly ÃÃup the anteÄÄ and transfer increasing
control of the modalities, access to more knowledgeable members,
procedural facilitation, and the demands of the discourse.
When working with nonconventional readers and writers—
students who are still struggling to decode and produce written
text—teachers often must allow students to utilize alternative modes
of responding to enter the literacy community. This includes using
alternative ways to produce written text, to read text, and to make
public the results of their work. Monica and other teachers on the
Early Literacy Project used a wide-range of techniques to allow stu-
dents to enter the world of writing, including drawing pictures,
copying text, writing the ürst letter of a word and drawing a line,
taking dictation, and using Post-It notes to spell unknown words.
While Nathan and other students in MonicaÄs class struggled to
produce written text independently, she still emphasized the impor-
tance of helping each student feel like an informant by making their
writing (or reading) a public and shared event. To accomplish this
goal, Monica had her students read their writing in Sharing Chair,
participate in Morning Message, read with partners, write with part-
ners, and write to pen pals in the district. Students like Nathan, who
had difficulty reading written text, were often times allowed to
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
FIG
UR
E9
Mon
icaÄs
cu
rric
ula
rfo
cu
san
dst
rate
gie
sfo
rass
isti
ng
wri
tin
gdevelo
pm
en
t.
330
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 331
dictate their stories and then memorize their text to read in the
Sharing Chair. Each student in the classroom was also given the
choice to call upon another student to help aid in their reading by
having that person stand behind them and whisper the correct pro-
nunciation in their ear. In this way, even nonconventional readers
and writers were assisted to become authors in the classroom.
Throughout the year, as students became more conventional
readers and writers, students relied less on others to help support the
reading of their texts but beneütted from the increasing complexity of
the comments and questions posed by their audience. Just as students
were apprenticed as authors who shared their thinking in a public
forum, so too were the audience members becoming more able to
respond to othersÄ texts through increasingly complex questions and
comments. As the student audience began to expect more of their
authors, the authors began creating richer and more complex texts
(Mariage, 1996).
A third way that Monica supported her studentsÄ writing develop-
ment was through the use of a variety of instructional scaþolds to
assist student writing. Key word charts (e.g., transition words),
helper words, non-phonetic sight words, word banks, writing process
chart (e.g., Plan, Organize, Write, Edit, and Revise), and charts
depicting speciüc editing strategies (e.g., CUPS—Capitalization, Use
correct words, Punctuation, and Spelling) were all displayed promi-
nently in the classroom. However, the mere presence of these sup-
ports is insufficient to support their use by novice writers. For
example, early in the year, Monica brought attention to the key word
chart in the room as she thought out loud about the need to help the
audience keep track of the diþerent categories of information as her
class developed whole class stories around expository topics (e.g.,
amphibians, reptiles, mammals). Monica demonstrated how the key
words ÃÃürst,ÄÄ ÃÃsecond,ÄÄ ÃÃthird,ÄÄ ÃÃnext,ÄÄ ÃÃthen,ÄÄ and ÃÃünallyÄÄ could
be used to sequence the paragraphs of their story on their whole class
organization map. Later in the year, as students began to use their
own individual maps, Monica had students write the key word
directly next to the category of information on their own organiz-
ation maps. Eventually, students were given a rubric that asked them
to utilize key words in their writing and to identify those key words
by using a colored-marker directly on the draft of their text.
A ünal area of focus in MonicaÄs classroom was to immerse her
students in a writing culture and the writing process. Monica provid-
ed many opportunities for students to engage in the entire writing
process as a whole class, to see text constructed in Morning Message,
to produce written text on a daily basis in journals and receive feed-
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
332 T. V. Mariage et al.
back on their writing attempts in Sharing Chair, and to engage in
inquiry units around expository topics included in the science (e.g.,
animals) and social science curricula.
In MonicaÄs and other ELP classrooms, there was a signiücant
shift in emphasis away from viewing reading and writing as ends-in-
themselves toward a recognition that reading, writing, and speaking
were tools to accomplish social goals. In both ELP and non-ELP class-
rooms, there tended to be an explicit focus on the direct instruction
of reading skills, strategies, and processes. However, in ELP class-
rooms, teachers tended to be more aware of the need to embed and
introduce these skills, strategies, and processes in authentic tasks
when they were necessary to accomplish meaningful goals for real
audiences and purposes. Speciücally, ELP teachers introduced
reading (e.g., predicting, summarizing), writing (e.g., editing conven-
tions, process of writing), and speaking (e.g., questioning) skills, stra-
tegies, and processes as tools that allowed the individual or group to
better accomplish their goals of communicating with each other.
To accomplish this, teachers emphasized the importance of placing
students in the role of scientist, researcher, author, and mathemati-
cian. Rather than artiücially limit what students could accomplish,
ELP teachers grew increasingly aware of the importance of adjusting
the scaþolding necessary to accomplish the communicative goal
rather than limiting what students attempted before they started. For
example, before a trip to interview members of an internationally
known circus, MonicaÄs students were given ample time to generate
questions to ask the performers with the assistance of question words
(e.g., who, what, when, where, why, how), were provided with a clip-
board and interview ÃÃthink-sheetÄÄ for recording their questions and
answers, and were paired with a fourth- or üfth-grade partner from
the upper elementary special education classroom for help and
support. In this way, Monica took seriously the need for her students
to learn to be ÃÃreportersÄÄ and ÃÃresearchersÄÄ and taught the speciüc
skills (e.g., asking a question), strategies (e.g., using a think-sheet to
organize your questions and provide enough space to write the per-
formerÄs response), and processes (e.g., brainstorming questions,
delimiting questions, asking questions, taking dictation, synthesizing
information, and drafting reports) necessary to accurately report on
the classÄ trip to the circus.
Rather than introduce the stages of the writing and inquiry
process as separate entities to be taught, Monica and other ELP tea-
chers created meaningful contexts that required the use of the stra-
tegies and processes in these stages to accomplish the larger goals of
the lesson (e.g., to create a written report and share this with the
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 333
kindergarten class). Teachers not only thoughtfully transferred
control of increasingly difficult skills and content, but also of aspects
of the various stages of the inquiry process (e.g., brainstorming, gath-
ering information, organizing information, drafting, and making
public the products of oneÄs inquiry).
For example, early in the year, Monica modeled and thought-aloud
with her students the entire inquiry process. She served as scribe and
brainstormed, categorized, and drafted text with students on large
chart paper. Later, Monica paired her 1st–3rd graders with fourth-
and üfth-grade students from the adjoining special education class-
room. These older students then served as apprentices to the younger
students, taking over the roles that Monica had performed earlier in
the year. Later in the year, Monica began to give groups of her stu-
dents responsibility for ünding information independently about a
single category (e.g., ÃÃHow the dolphin eatsÄÄ). Near the end of the
year, Monica began to expect some students to complete their own
categorization maps and begin to draft text independently from their
maps.
As MonicaÄs examples illustrate, teachers need to be thoughtful of
the many challenges that face special needs students like Nathan and
have speciüc strategies for assisting their development in a number of
areas. These students often will need support in producing written
text, in perceiving themselves as informants, in having access to scaf-
folds to support their writing, and in becoming immersed in a writing
culture and the writing process. However, it is the teacherÄsthoughtful transfer of control of all aspects of the meaning making
process that is essential if students are to take on increasingly
complex levels of independence and responsibility for regulating the
writing process. The most eþective teachers on the ELP were those
that initially supported students through the types of techniques and
strategies outlined in Figure 8 but who quickly asked students to
assume more cognitive work across the year. These teachers eþec-
tively increased the complexity of the modalities they asked students
to respond with (e.g., oral and written), the more knowledgeable
members available to support students (e.g., whole class, teacher led
vs. small group), the procedural facilitation available to support
thinking (e.g., teacher modeling of key words vs. independent use of
key words in own writing), and the demands of the discourse (e.g.,
teacher think-aloud vs. student think-aloud).
CONCLUSION
When teachers bring to conscious reýection multiple ways to assist
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
334 T. V. Mariage et al.
studentsÄ development, they enhance the opportunities that special
needs students have to learn more complex comprehension and com-
position processes. Students who are less likely to oþer their ideas or
who lack the complexity of other language users can be brought into
the fabric of more conventional literacy practices through the
teacherÄs thoughtful use of a variety of instructional features, includ-
ing discourse, building a classroom community that nurtures the dia-
logical relationship (Barnes, 1992), procedural facilitation, and the
gradual ceding of responsibility to students to take a greater role in
the meaning-making process.
On the Early Literacy Project, teachers came to choose a variety
of literacy events that had important implications for aþording
opportunities to engage in multiple ways of reading, writing, think-
ing, and talking (Englert & Mariage, 1996). However, merely choos-
ing diþerent literacy events does not mean that students necessarily
participate in these diþerent discourses, roles, and ways of using lit-
eracy as tools to learn, or that teachers will alter the ways in which
they assist learning.
The teacherÄs role as ÃÃmore knowledgeable otherÄÄ must extend far
beyond oneÄs knowledge of literacy content. If teachers are to suc-
cessfully educate students with special needs, they will need to be
increasingly able to orchestrate multiple ways of assisting both the
cognitive and social development of their students. When teachers
choose powerful literacy events and begin to understand how to maxi-
mize the learning potential of the event, they can transform the
social contexts of classrooms and successfully teach more students,
including those with special needs. This places the role of more
knowledgeable others in assisting development as the centerpiece for
teaching, learning, and future research.
REFERENCES
Barnes, D. (1992). From communication to curriculum. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-
Heineman.
Bereiter, C., & Bird. (1985). Use of thinking aloud in identiücation and teaching of
reading comprehension strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 2, 131–156.
Berglund, R., & Johns, J. (1983). A primer on uninterrupted sustained silent reading.
Reading Teacher, 36, 534–539.
Bloome, D. (1986). Building literacy communities. Theory Into Practice, 15, 71–76.
Bos, C. S. (1991). Reading-writing connections: Using literature as a zone of proximal
development for writing. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 6, 252–263.
Bos, C. S., & Anders, P. L. (1990). Interactive teaching and learning: Instructional
practices for teaching content and strategic knowledge. In T. E. Scruggs & B. Y. L.
Wong (Eds.), Intervention research in learning disabilities (pp. 116–185). New York:
Springer-Verlag.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
Assisting Literacy Development 335
Bos, C. S., Anders, P. L., Filip, D., and Jaþe, L. E. (1989). The eþects of an interactive
instructional strategy for enhancing learning disabled studentsÄ reading com-
prehension and content area learning. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 22, 384–390.
Burbules, N. C. (1993). Dialogue in teaching: Theory and practice. New York: Teachers
College Press.
Collins, J. (1982). Discourse style, classroom interaction, and diþerential treatment.
Journal of Reading Behavior, 14, 429–438.
Daiute, C. (1986). Do 1 and 1 make 2? Written Communication, 3, 283–308.
Englert, C. S., Garmon, A., Mariage, T. V., Rozendal, M. S., Tarrant, K. L., & Urba, J.
(1995). The early literacy project : Connecting across the literacy curriculum. Learn-
ing Disability Quarterly, 18, 253–275.
Englert, C. S., & Mariage, T. V. (1996). A sociocultural perspective : Teaching ways-of-
thinking and ways-of-talking in a literacy community. Learning Disabilities
Research and Practice, 11(3), 157–167.
Englert, C. S., Mariage, T. V., Garmon, M. A., & Tarrant, K. L. (1998). Accelerating
reading progress in early literacy project classrooms: Three exploratory studies.
Remedial and Special Education, 19(3), 142–159.
Englert, C. S., & Raphael, T. E. (1989). Developing successful writers through cognitive
strategy instruction in writing. In J. E. Brophy (Ed.), Advances in research in teach-
ing (pp. 106–151). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., & Anderson, L. M. (1992). Socially-mediated instruction:
Improving studentsÄ knowledge and talk about writing. Elementary School Journal,
92(4), 411–450.
Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. R., & Mariage, T. V. (1994). Developing a school-based dis-
course for literacy learning: A principled search for understanding. Learning Dis-
abilities Quarterly, 17, 3–33.
Gallimore, R., Goldenberg, C. N., & Weisner, T. S. (1992). The social construction and
subjective reality of activity settings : Implications for community psychology.
Paper prepared for a special issue of the American Journal of Community Psychol-
ogy, February.
Gee, J. P. (1992). The social mind: Language, ideology, and social practice. New York:
Bergin & Garvey.
George, J. C. (1972). Julie of the wolves. New York: Harper Trophy.
Graves, D. H., & Hansen, J. (1983). The authorÄs chair. Language Arts, 60, 176–183.
Idol, L. (1987). A critical thinking map to improve content area comprehension of poor
readers. Remedial and Special Education, 8(4), 28–40.
Labbo, L. D., & Teale, W. H. (1990). Cross-age reading: A strategy for helping poor
readers. The Reading Teacher, 43, 362–369.
Lampert, M., Rittenhouse, P., & Crumbaugh, C. (1996). Agreeing to disagree:
Developing social mathematical discourse. In D. R. Olson and N. Torrance (Eds.),
The handbook of education and human development (pp. 731–764). Cambridge, MA:
Blackwell Publishers.
Lenz, K. B. (1989). In the spirit of strategies instruction: Cognitive and metacognitive
aspects of the strategies intervention model. Prepared for the National Institute of
Dyslexia Second Annual Conference, February. The University of Kansas Institute
for Research in Learning Disabilities.
Levine, S. (1984). USSR: A necessary component in teaching reading. Journal of
Reading, 28, 394–400.
Mariage, T. V. (1995). Why students learn: Examining the nature of teacher talk
during reading. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 214–234.
Mariage, T. V. (1996). The construction and reconstruction of two discourse spaces in a
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4
336 T. V. Mariage et al.
special education classroom: A sociolinguistic examination of sharing chair and
morning message. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. East Lansing, MI: Michigan
State University.
Moll, L. C., & Greenberg, J. B. (1990). Creating zones of possibilities : Combining social
contexts for instruction. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional
implications and applications of sociohistorical psychology (pp. 319–348). Cambridge,
MA: Cambridge University Press.
Morrice, C., & Simmons, M. (1991). Beyond reading buddies : A whole language cross-
age program. The Reading Teacher, 44, 572–577.
Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive
change in school. New York: Cambridge University Press.
OÄConnor, M. C. (1996). Managing the intermental : Classroom group discussion and
the social context of learning. In D. I. Slobin, J. Gerhardt, A. Kyratzis, & J. Guo
(Eds.), Social interaction, social context, and language: Essays in honor of Susan
Ervin-Tripp (pp. 495–509). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
OÄConnor, M. C., & Michaels, S. (1993). Aligning academic task and participation
status through revoicing: Analysis of a classroom discourse strategy. Anthropology
and Education Quarterly, 24(4), 318–335.
Palincsar, A. S. (1986). The role of dialogue in providing scaþolded instruction. Educa-
tional Psychologist, 21(1&2), 73–98.
Raphael, T. R., Englert, C. S., & Kirschner, B. W. (1989). StudentsÄ metacognitive know-
ledge about writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 23(4), 343–379.
Roehler, L. R., & Duþy, G. G. (1991). TeachersÄ instructional actions. In Handbook of
reading research. Vol. 2 (pp. 861–883). White Plains, NY: Longman.
Routman, R. (1991). Invitations: Changing as teachers and learners K–12. Portsmouth,
NH: Heineman.
Ruiz, N. T., Garcia, E., and Figueroa, R. A. (1996). The OLE curriculum guide: Creating
optimal learning environments for students from diverse backgrounds in special and
general education. Sacramento, CA: Specialized Program Branch, California
Department of Education.
Topping, K. (1989). Peer tutoring and paired reading: Combining two powerful tech-
niques. The Reading Teacher, 42, 488–494.
Tannen, D. (1989). Talking voices : Repetition, dialogue, and imagery in conversational
discourse. Great Britain: Cambridge University Press.
Tharp, R. G., & Gallimore, R. (1988). Rousing minds to life : Teaching, learning, and
schooling in social context. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wells, G. (1996). Using the tool-kit of discourse in the activity of learning and teaching.
Mind, Culture, and Activity, 3(2), 74–101.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action.
Cambridge, MA: The Harvard University Press.
Dow
nloa
ded
by [
Uni
vers
ity o
f G
lasg
ow]
at 1
7:15
04
Oct
ober
201
4